Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, but are you suggesting it isnt?Are you suggesting that it's true because lots of people believe it?
And just as easily can any nut-job be a non believer too.Any nut-job can be a believer.
To JasonV
No, but are you suggesting it isnt?
I am sure I have already made it clear the truth is Jesus Christ, so not sure why you asked.I do not believe numerical superiority or age have anything to do with truth.
To Ave Maria,
I am against the ordination of anyone wilfully practicing any sin, including same sex relationships, in fact I think wilfully practicing sin and not accepting it is sin is an indication that a person hasnt yet accepted the forgiveness of sins and Christ as saviour. (which is what a number of scriptures including 1 Cor 6 indicate)
The first issue/hurdle is the issue is the changing of the sacramental definition of marriage to include homosexual marriage. Surely, we are not thinking that ordinating folks who are have sex outside of marriage. Is not fornication still a sin?
I was enrolled for three years in the Education For Ministry (EFM) extention course being held in my community. It is a history of Christianity and Anglicanism designed to give both historical and theological information to those preparing for non-stipendiary misistry and interested lay-persons.
My class has a few ordination candidates and several lay-readers, among the most serious and commited members of their parishes. They were all over 45. They weren't stupid, immoral, or unthoughtful. Without exception, they did not consider sex outside of marriage a sin, as long as people were committed and "in love". They were also shocked to discover that some still consider "fornication" to be a sin, or living in a common-law relationship to be a problem.
Our diocese is pretty middle-of-the-road in terms of liberalism in North America, but this is typical of what one would find in most of the diocese here. Some individuals are more conservative, but those people do not tend to be the ones who seek out more theologically oriented education.
I'm not sure of your point. Surely, whether fornication is sin or not is not a matter of what is accepted in indivdual communities at individual times in history.
I do understand that views can change over time (e.g. slavery). However, I don't think that the nature of marriage and sexuality is such a situation.
Keep in mind that sex in marriage occured to women as young as 12 in Biblical times. Today we say that sex with someone that young is immoral, but if it wasn't the case during the old days, Jesus wouldn't have been born to Mary. So yes, morals do change over time.
Yes as has been mentioned fornication (pornos) as in Matthew 19 is what happens outside faithful marriage, the alternative given is celibacy for whatever reason.
Sadly one could say the church has in the past ordained paedophiles, at least some clergy have been found guilty of such acts! Yet they didnt declare their intention to sin at ordination. Many clergy have fallen short in adultery yet again they didnt declare their intention to sin at ordination. However with the gay and lesbian movement we now have clergy declaring their mission is sin before they are ordained.
It isnt that clergy are to be perfect and sinless, but that they know what sin and repentance is otherwise there is little point in them being clergy as they might lead people to the law of sin and death instead of leading people to the law of the Spirit and life through Jesus Christ.
same sex practices are far more clearly
Sorry, I am confused. Isn't the law of the Spirit and life to be found in the two greatest commandments? Aren't we, as Christians, more influenced by the Sermon on the Mount as opposed to the Decalogue?
If one believes, as I do, in what the American Psych Association has stated - that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and is hardwired into us... I don't see how any homosexual can be a clergyperson if we expect them to remain celibate. Then again, from what I have been told about Luther, I feel affinity to the Saints and Sinners at same time theology.
Sadly, this is another case where people in the Biblical times knew far less than we do now and were more apt to call such acts "sinful".
At this point I just want to make the common disclaimer that anyone is free to disagree with me (duh), and I don't think less of anyone that does. I just feel this thinking has validity.
IMHO, It is a shame that we have neither a passage of the Bible where Jesus literally, blatantly, excludes or accepts someone that is not just "perhaps gay", but so gay, they led the parade through Jerusalem.... I mean unmistakenly gay. For I think this would solve a lot of disagreements.
Where does that leave us? Should I accept a priest who has indicated that he will continue to engage in sinful behavior outside of marriage after he (or she) is ordained?
No, much more. The law of the Spirit and life is found through Christ and the Holy Spirit, the two greatest commandments were OT law and prophets and are fulfilled by Jesus. Consider that Jesus gave a new command to have faith in Him, obey what He teaches and to love one another as He loved; as He loved is different from loving as oneself.Sorry, I am confused. Isn't the law of the Spirit and life to be found in the two greatest commandments? Aren't we, as Christians, more influenced by the Sermon on the Mount as opposed to the Decalogue?
Thats in response to the word of God I cited, you must believe in the APA more, thats where your faith is. However the APA have admitted recently there isnt any consensus of scientific agreement as to proof of it being hardwired, which is something NARTH have been saying, so thats an assumption on your part. Furthermore do you believe any temptation is innate or is it just the case with same sex attraction? What about adultery, is opposite sex attraction hardwired and if so why suppress it to a faithful union?If one believes, as I do, in what the American Psych Association has stated - that sexual orientation cannot be changed, and is hardwired into us... I don't see how any homosexual can be a clergyperson if we expect them to remain celibate.
Then where would the inspiration of the Holy Spirit apply, or Jesus speaking the words of the Father or what apostles learned from the Son of God be relevant?Sadly, this is another case where people in the Biblical times knew far less than we do now and were more apt to call such acts "sinful".
There is no concept of gay in Gods word so Gods word cant comment on something humans have made up. There are exclusions and condemnations of same sex relations, remember Christ came to save people from the sin, He doesnt condemn sinnersIMHO, It is a shame that we have neither a passage of the Bible where Jesus literally, blatantly, excludes or accepts someone that is not just "perhaps gay", but so gay, they led the parade through Jerusalem.... I mean unmistakenly gay. For I think this would solve a lot of disagreements.
Thats in response to the word of God I cited, you must believe in the APA more, thats where your faith is. However the APA have admitted recently there isnt any consensus of scientific agreement as to proof of it being hardwired, which is something NARTH have been saying, so thats an assumption on your part.
Furthermore do you believe any temptation is innate or is it just the case with same sex attraction?
What about adultery, is opposite sex attraction hardwired and if so why suppress it to a faithful union?
Then where would the inspiration of the Holy Spirit apply, or Jesus speaking the words of the Father or what apostles learned from the Son of God be relevant?
There is no concept of gay in Gods word so Gods word cant comment on something humans have made up. There are exclusions and condemnations of same sex relations, remember Christ came to save people from the sin, He doesnt condemn sinners
Yes, but as they are changing their minds that doesnt help your position. The word of God however is clear and doesnt change.Can you provide documentation for this claim?
Then I cant see how you have the same god, God spoke creation into being, not sure thats science.But to answer your rebuttal, yes. I do see science as God's Word to us today.
So if innate is your criteria, why would you have other people resist their temptations such as adultery and paedophilia, but not homosexual ones? If however your criteria was harm, whether the desire is innate or not would be irrelevant.Any temptation is innate.
Let me stop you there. You are disputing what is a sin and then claiming Jesus erased the guilt. Nor are we justified by His death as a default condition as His teaching frequently shows not everyone will be saved and that we receive justification by faith in Him.That being said, if you will allow me to indulge my semi-pelagian side... Jesus erased the guilt of original sin. We are justified by his death as a default condition.
Well is it up to you or do you take any notice of what Jesus Christ taught in the Bible?Why indeed?
but many people would not find harmful the things that you might find harmful. And anyway Jesus Christs NT teaching says sexual immorality harms ones own body.... as long as there is no harm involved, go for it, I say.
Hang on you have used 1 Corinthians 13 which you have just implied is a part of the Bible written with human understanding. That was my question how can you trust 1 Cor 13 if its just what humans understood then.To purposely misquote Forrest Gump... love is as love does. It is our actions which demonstrate our love. If one's actions mirror what love is in I Cor 13, I feel safe saying they are completing the 2 greatest commandments.
There is no concept of gay in Gods word so Gods word cant comment on something you mentioned. I am asking you to provide some evidence in Gods word of the concept of gay. All the scripture does is countenance man/woman unions and condemn same sex ones.Again, I am going to have to ask for supporting evidence that there is no concept of gay in God's word.
To ProdigalSeeker,
Yes, but as they are changing their minds that doesnt help your position. The word of God however is clear and doesnt change. [/color]
Then I cant see how you have the same god, God spoke creation into being, not sure thats science.
So if innate is your criteria, why would you have other people resist their temptations such as adultery and paedophilia, but not homosexual ones? If however your criteria was harm, whether the desire is innate or not would be irrelevant.
Let me stop you there. You are disputing what is a sin and then claiming Jesus erased the guilt. Nor are we justified by His death as a default condition as His teaching frequently shows not everyone will be saved and that we receive justification by faith in Him.
Well is it up to you or do you take any notice of what Jesus Christ taught in the Bible?
but many people would not find harmful the things that you might find harmful. And anyway Jesus Christs NT teaching says sexual immorality harms ones own body.
Hang on you have used 1 Corinthians 13 which you have just implied is a part of the Bible written with human understanding. That was my question how can you trust 1 Cor 13 if its just what humans understood then.
There is no concept of gay in Gods word so Gods word cant comment on something you mentioned. I am asking you to provide some evidence in Gods word of the concept of gay. All the scripture does is countenance man/woman unions and condemn same sex ones.
I have no intention of trading research statements with you in the light of the truth of God’s word. You will only say you don’t agree with the ones I provide and I will no doubt disagree with the ones you provide.So you can't or won't provide evidence that their stance is that sexuality can't be changed.
As I said God spoke creation into being, just how I am not interested this is a Christian section of the forum not a science one.If you choose not to believe in the Big Bang, I am not going to force you.
So why did you say one can’t expect someone to change if their sexuality is hardwired? Are you now withdrawing that line of argument?No, No. The irrelevancy is innate. The difference is harm.
Well sorry but to me its obvious you are absolutely not taking any notice of the Bible as each Biblical reference I cite and refer to you contradict with one of your own ideas or some disputed scientific theory.Absolutely.
No its not vague at all… 1 Corinthians 6 just earlier in the chapter says 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.That is sooo vague, sexual immortality. Some people would say that using a paddle between married adults is immoral, and use the same morality you are expounding.
On the contrary you see the word of God says not to lean on human experience and understanding but trust God and His word.1 Cor 3, the wisdom of the world is foolisheness to God. And anyway I dont agree with what you are claiming about human experiecne either. Furthermore if you think the NT says its ok to own slaves you will need to show me chapter and verse.Because THIS has held up to what has been true throughout the human experience to this day. The Bible also says it is ok to own slaves... so obviously that has to be true today also, yes?
Well no lets not until you understand my question to you. The definition of gay in a sexual connotation means having a same sex attraction and as God created man and woman to be united and condemns same sex sexual relationships gay is really only a sexually immoral desire or act. It’s a concept that is excluded and condemned.Oh, I see. Thank you. You are saying God's word to refer to the Bible, not Jesus, Himself. Well, let's look at this:
2. NT - Since JC never said anything about gay relations, one must look to
Jesus never said anything that wasn’t written down by men, neither Matthew, Mark Luke or John or Paul. Paul received his revelation not from man but from the risen Lord Jesus. So your statement doesn’t seem to have grasped some basics.Paul
If you don’t think He was speaking to modern day people about what God had created in the beginning and then instructed disciples to pass on all He had taught, I cant see what relevance the Biblical Testimony of Jesus Christ has for you.wasn't speaking to modern day people,
Let me stop you there, there is no concept of gay in God’s word so you cant use it until you have established there is. Gay means having a same sex attraction, a couple of people who have same sex attraction and are thus gay could be a man and a woman.but was refering to specific situations where, in a gay couple,
Yes but this is the word of God against cultural deviances.one was the masculine (and therefore superior partner) and the other was the femme' (and therefore inferior). These cultures had entire systems of codes relegating such behavior and their outlook towards it. For example, irrumatio, which a quick web search will show to be about exploitation.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?